what's your verdict?

GUILTY

NOT GUILTY

I'm gonna do a series of these periodically. I'm doing a sample test on the results. Give YOUR HONEST VOTE ON THE POLL.

Case:
Man is charged with sexual battery on a minor under 12

Affidavit:

An 8 year old girl claims her male babysitter(aged 41) molested and sexually battered her. She says he would sit her on his lap and touch her vagina. She also claims he makes her give him oral sex. She does not know how many times this has happened, but says "a lot."
Mother was eventually told after approx 6 months and has called the police which lead to an arrest.

-The TRIAL-

Prosecution:
-Provides video footage of a state psychologist's interview with the girl. Girl(in the video), after struggling, confirms what is in the affidavit.
-State psychologist says the child's behavior during the interview is consistent with abuse victims.
-Defense cross exams and asks if the girl could have been nervous. State psychologist says "no, she was clearly sad"
-Defense calls out the psychologist for "asking leading questions" such as "how did (defendant name) abuse you" rather than "were you abused? who abused you?"
-Defense is asked by judge to reword questions and statement as to not "badger" or "accuse the psychologist of bad practice".
-Defense doesn't go any further.
-Girl testifies on the stand and repeats the story.
-Prosecution asks the girl to describe the defendant.
-Girl says he has a small mark "when he is naked."
-Prosecution asks specifically if the mark is near his "pee-pee"
-Girl confirms.
-State provides photos, taken as evidence, of the defendant's privates.
-Photos show a small mark on inner thigh directly across from penis.
-Mother testifies, but does not say anything other than she believes her daughter was abused by the defendant.
-Mother agrees with defense's cross examination that she had no reason to suspect anything. She simply believes her daughter.
-State rests.

Defense:
-Says the accusations are "bogus" and "way from left-field."
-Says the mother has multiple boyfriends and any one of them could be the abuser if there IS an abuser.
-Says the photos and girl's accurate description of a "mark" has no merit simply because it is visible in short shorts such as swimming trunks.
-Defendant testifies and denies the accusation. He does not know why he is being accused of this, but thinks the mother has coerced her daughter.
-Defense says there's no DNA evidence to prove anything.
-Defense brings up the girl being asked leading questions specifically about mark(s) near his privates.
-Defense repeats that this is not enough to find a person guilty.
-Defense brings up that the girl does not even know how many times she was allegedly abused and that the mother confirmed that she had no reason to suspect anything.
-Defense admits they found no motive for a false accusation, but reaffirms that the allegations are false.
-Defense rests.

JURY INSTRUCTION:
Judge tells the jury(which you are apart of) that to find the defendant guilty of sexual battery on a child under 12 years of age the State must prove:

1. the victim was less than 12 years of age
2. ANY of the following(can also be all):

(Defendant) committed an act [upon] [with] (victim) in
which the sexual organ of the [(defendant)] [(victim)] penetrated or had union with the [anus] [vagina] [mouth] of the [(victim)] [(defendant)].

(Defendant) committed an act upon (victim) in which the [anus] [vagina] of (victim) was penetrated by an object.

(Defendant) injured the sexual organ of (victim) in an attempt to commit an act [upon] [with] (victim) in which the sexual organ of the [(defendant)] [(victim)] would have penetrated or would have had union with the [anus] [vagina] [mouth] of the [(victim)] [(defendant)].

(Defendant) injured the sexual organ of (victim) in an attempt to commit an act upon (victim) in which the [anus] [vagina] of (victim) would be penetrated by an object.
Judge provides the following "lesser included offenses" if you cannot find the defendant guilty of the state's charge, but you find him guilty of an offense:

I'd have to say not guilty. just cuz theres no DNA. the mark is visible while clothed and the mother seems suspicious. i mean shit she had a 41 year old non family member babysit her daughter. theres nothin to tie the man to the crime. id be a shame if he was guilty but in a case like this ANY shred of doubt means you let him go. you dont ruin someones life over a maybe.

we dont know for sure if its a victim or not. thats what im sayin bro. theres no where NEAR enough evidence to put homey in jail whether he did or didnt do it. if it was a murder case then maybe cuz someone actually died and even then not like a bar fight death or car hit death maybe like a serial killer cuz id put a 100 dudes that accidentally killed someone in a bar on the street over 100 serial killers cuz then theyd have to take the trip even if they might not have been guilty ya know? thats a risk u might not wanna take.

but with this just let him go. you'd want to be let go if it was you. and if he's guilty the mom needed a better lawyer cuz this one came up with NOTHING.

Yeah I meant that in a way that 100 killers on the street or ACTUAL molesters

From an objective standpoint.. let homedude go. No physical evidence and any evidence at this point is circumstantial. He can't be found guilty on testimony alone (he technically can but fuck that shit). Whether he did it or not, legal precedence says to let him go. The leading questions were a big mistake and the judge can S my D for getting mad at the lawyer for questioning the psychiatrist or w.e

there is victim testimony where she identifies him (even if you think she said there was a mark from leading questions, she still initially claimed he did it).

what is the reasonable doubt? that an 8 year old made up that someone made her give him a blow job? is it reasonable to think that a mother would allow her daughter to be molested by a boyfriend and protect him?

btw THE MAN IS A 41 YEAR OLD BABY SITTER!!! have there been any character witnesses?? are there past clients that this guy has babysat or is he new to the field???

burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.. without the childs live testimony there is literally zero chance i could rule as guilty of anything.

Click to expand...

Girl testifies on the stand and repeats the story.
-Prosecution asks the girl to describe the defendant.
-Girl says he has a small mark "when he is naked."
-Prosecution asks specifically if the mark is near his "pee-pee"
-Girl confirms.
-State provides photos, taken as evidence, of the defendant's privates.
-Photos show a small mark on inner thigh directly across from penis.

Girl testifies on the stand and repeats the story.
-Prosecution asks the girl to describe the defendant.
-Girl says he has a small mark "when he is naked."
-Prosecution asks specifically if the mark is near his "pee-pee"
-Girl confirms.
-State provides photos, taken as evidence, of the defendant's privates.
-Photos show a small mark on inner thigh directly across from penis.

so you would say guilty?

Click to expand...

Thats not beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt means 100% certainty. If your on trial for killing someone, and its caught on tape, and you can be easily identified. The act of you killing that person is beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah... about that. I'd rather have Mr. Jones from down the street locked up rather than 100 Green River Killers running free

Click to expand...

Thats because you assume Mr Jones cant be you

All it takes is a mistaken ID and you could go to prison for the rest of your life. Happens all the time. Theres people who were on death row, who were found to be innocent by DNA tests. Some of those people have never committed a crime. Could be you.

I think every Judge/Prosecutor/Lawyer should spend one month in prison before getting their licenses. I really feel this way.